UK: The Awakening Giant Of Anti-Corruption Enforcement

Last Updated: 24 August 2007

OECD Criticism Of UK Anti-Bribery Legislation And Policy: The UK's Response

  1. Events leading to the OECD Phase Two Bis' Review of the United Kingdom

    In December 1998, the United Kingdom Government ratified the OECD Convention on Bribery, a key weapon in the global battle against corruption. The OECD recognised that corruption was not a one-way street,' that those who offered bribes were as guilty of corruption as those who received them. By virtue of Article 5, signatories assert that the investigation and prosecution of a foreign official will not be influenced by,

    "considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another State or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved".

    At its March 2007 meeting, the OECD Working Group on Bribery reaffirmed its serious concerns about the United Kingdom's discontinuance of the BAE Al Yamamah investigation and outlined continued shortcomings in UK Anti-Bribery legislation. It urged the UK to remedy these shortcomings post-haste and decided to conduct a further examination of the UK's efforts to fight bribery. The Working Group, which brings together all 36 countries that have signed and ratified the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention1, acknowledged that the UK has taken a number of important measures to implement the Convention in the two-year period since a Phase two review of its policies in March 2005.

    However, the 2005 Phase two report on the United Kingdom recommended, as did an earlier 2003 Working Group report, that the UK enact modern foreign bribery legislation at the earliest possible date. The Working Group has expressed concern that this recommendation, which reflected deficiencies of UK law on foreign bribery, still remains unimplemented.

    In 2005, the Working Group recommended that the UK monitor decisions not to open or close foreign bribery investigations. While the Working Group welcomed recent increases in resources for investigations2, the continuing lack of any prosecution for grand corruption has raised further concern.

    As a result of the discontinuance in 2006 of the BAE/Al Yamamah investigation, the Working Group has decided to conduct a supplementary review of the United Kingdom ("Phase two bis") focused on progress in enacting a new foreign bribery law and in broadening the liability of legal persons for foreign bribery. The Phase two bis review will also examine whether systemic problems explain the lack of foreign bribery cases brought to prosecution as well as other matters raised in the context of the discontinuance of the BAE investigation. The Phase two bis review will include an on-site visit to be conducted within one year.

  2. UK Anti-Bribery Legislation

    The criminal law relating to bribery in the United Kingdom currently encompasses a common law bribery offence and a series of statutory offences. The key offences relating to bribery of public officials are:

    1. Common law: There is a common law offence of bribery that is generally quoted and accepted to be:

      "the receiving or offering [of] any undue reward by or to any person whatsoever, in a public office, in order to influence his behaviour in office, and incline him to act contrary to the known rules of honesty and integrity" (Russell on Crime, 1964, pg 381)

    2. The Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889

      The UK has prosecuted the crime of bribery under the common law for many centuries but the crime of corruption only entered statute law in 1889 when Lord Randolph Churchill MP introduced a Private Members' Bill which outlawed bribery of public officials.

      The 1889 Act makes the active or passive bribery of a member, officer or servant of a public body a criminal offence. The Act prohibits a person covered by the Act, whether by himself, or in conjunction with any other person, from corruptly soliciting or receiving, or agreeing to receive, for himself, or any other person, any gift, loan, fee, reward or advantage whatever as an inducement to, or reward for, doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed, in which the public body is concerned. A person may also not corruptly promise, or offer, any gift, loan, fee, reward, or advantage whatsoever, to any person, whether for the benefit of that person, or of another person, as an inducement to or reward for doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever, actual or proposed; in which the public body is concerned.

    3. The Prevention of Corruption Act 1906

      In 1906 a new Act was introduced which makes it a crime to bribe any agent'. An agent is anybody employed by or acting for another, whether in the public or private sector. This Act makes it an offence for:

      1. an agent to obtain a consideration as an inducement or reward for doing any act, or showing favour or disfavour to any person, in relation to his principal's affairs.
      2. any person to give a consideration to an agent to induce him to do an act in relation to his principal's affairs.
      3. any person or agent to knowingly falsify receipts, accounts or other documents with the intent to deceive the principal.
    4. The Prevention of Corruption Act 1916

      Under this provision, if a contractor gives a gift to a public official, that gift shall be presumed to be corrupt unless the accused person can prove otherwise. The Law Commission recommended the abolition of the presumption and the Act has been abandoned by the CPS given concerns about its compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government has stated it will repeal this law soon.

      The definition of a public body was amended by the 1916 Act to include: "local and public authorities of all descriptions" (section 4(2)).

    5. The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

      Part of 12 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 extends the scope of the U.K. law on bribery to foreign' bribery. It does this by providing that the existing bribery offences are also offences if they are committed outside the UK, or if they involve either foreign agents or principals having no connection to the UK, or holders of a foreign public office, or officials of foreign bodies or authorities which are the equivalent in the country concerned of those covered by the domestic offence.

      In other respects the elements of the offences remain unchanged; the Act makes it clear however that the existing presumption of corruption in respect of the statutory offences is not correspondingly extended. Part 12 of the Act also provides for jurisdiction over U.K. nationals or bodies incorporated in the U.K. who commit one of the offences as now redefined, no matter where outside the U.K. the offence is committed.

      Furthermore, the UK is a signatory of the following anti-corruption conventions:

      • The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)
      • The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC)
      • OECD Convention on Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions
      • Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption
      • Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption (Yet to ratify)
      • The EU Convention on the Protection of the Financial Interests of the communities and protocols
      • Convention on the Fight against Corruption involving Officials of the European Communities or Officials of Member States of the European Union
  3. Agency Enforcement

    The UK Government has confirmed the Serious Fraud Office's lead role in handling foreign bribery allegations and the SFO has created a special unit to vet such allegations. Where the SFO declines to take on a case under its screening criteria the case may be prosecuted by other agencies.

    In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a prosecution for a statutory bribery offence cannot be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General. As with all UK proceedings the prosecutor must give consideration to the public interest in light of the factors set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors3, once the case has passed the evidential sufficiency' test.

  4. The decision to halt the investigation into BAE and the Al Yamamah contract

    After a two year investigation by the SFO, with the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP), the Attorney-General appeared before the House of Lords on 14th December 2006 to report the decision of the SFO to discontinue its investigations. He said that, it has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest4'.

    The Attorney General's statement:

    "It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest. No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest.

    The prime minister and the foreign and defence secretaries have expressed the clear view that continuation of the investigation would cause serious damage to UK/Saudi security, intelligence and diplomatic cooperation, which is likely to have seriously negative consequences for the UK public interest in terms of both national security and our highest priority foreign policy objectives in the Middle East."

    He stated that the decision did not breach article 5 of the OECD Convention:

    Article 5 of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions precludes me and the Serious Fraud Office from taking into account considerations of the national economic interest or the potential effect upon relations with another state, and we have not done so.'

    Such was the importance of the decision that the Prime Minister justified it by saying:

    Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine. That strategic interest comes first.'
  5. The Attorney-General in the House of Lords: The Post-mortem

    Since then, Lord Goldsmith has attempted to reassure critics that the UK was committed to pursuing corruption by UK companies overseas. The clear message is that no company is above the law,' he said.

    During an opposition day in the House of Lords in February, the Lords questioned the Attorney General on his reasons for supporting the SFO's decision to discontinue the investigation. In the face of growing criticism, the Attorney-General appeared in the House of Lords to, clear some of the air,' because, he said, a number of misconceptions& inaccuracies, and worse,' have been expressed about the issues surrounding the BAE case. He addressed the concerns raised about discontinuing the case:-

    1. The decision to discontinue:

      The Attorney-General stated in early 2007 that the Prime Minister did not order the termination of the investigation, but that in fact the decision to terminate the investigation was taken by the director of the Serious Fraud Office. The Cabinet was not consulted about that decision but, as explained in his Statement of 14 December 2006, the views of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary were obtained as to the public interest considerations raised by the investigation. This was done in accordance with the well established procedure known as "a Shawcross exercise5"

      What the Prime Minister said was that he took responsibility for the advice given about national security. I shall return to that issue, but I can assure this House that the decision was not taken by the Prime Minister. I would never have allowed that to happen&The director and the assistant-director of the SFO, who attended the recent meeting of the OECD working party, have made that plain.' (Attorney-General)
    2. The case was unlikely to lead to a successful prosecution:

      The Attorney-General, in his speech before the House of Lords, reiterated that no charges had in fact been laid. He said:

      I was sceptical about the evidential basis of the case for quite some time, but I allowed the SFO to seek to deal with the problems. After it became apparent quite how dangerous the issues of public interest were, I cleared my diary and spent three days, I think, on this. I called in the SFO investigators and asked them to take me through all the detail, which I had not been able to do before. I took the advice of very experienced leading counsel and formed the conclusion that, ultimately, this case was not going to succeed.' (Attorney-General)
    3. The threat to national security:

      In justifying the decision to cease the investigation, the Attorney-General stated that the decision was based on the risk to national and international security, and ultimately the risk to UK lives, if the investigation had continued. Those best placed to make that assessment included the Prime Minister, senior Ministers, our intelligence agencies and our ambassador.

      Saudi Arabia was cited as a source of valuable streams of intelligence on al-Qaeda and other terrorist activity that may represent a threat to UK citizens, at home and abroad and to its Armed Forces. Saudi Arabia also undoubtedly plays a key role in the UK Government's efforts to promote peace and stability in the Middle East.

      It was not a decision taken lightly. Of course, there are countervailing considerations, many referred to by noble Lords today—the reputation of this country, our commitment to tackling corruption, the message that we might give to others—but, at the end of the day, sometimes hard decisions have to be made; one has to grasp the nettle, and the facts were that there was a real threat that had to be considered properly.' (Attorney-General)

      The Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) has made it clear publicly that it shared the concerns of others in government over the possible consequences for the public interest of the SFO investigation. The Attorney informed the House that the SIS considered that there was a threat to the UK's national security interests from pursuing the Al Yamamah investigation and it had been informed of the threat to curtail co-operation directly. He said neither SIS nor anyone else who was consulted disagreed with the overall assessment that the Saudi threats were real. SIS agreed that, while it did not know whether this threat would be carried out, it had to be taken seriously. On 18 January, before the SFO decision was taken, Lord Goldsmith discussed the matter directly with the chief of SIS. The SIS authorised him to say that it is clear about the importance of the Saudi counterterrorist effort to the UK. Its view is that it would not be possible to replicate the level of counter-terrorism effort that had been achieved with the Saudis on UK/Saudi aspects of the problem if it were necessary to work at one remove, via the USA, for example.

    4. The threat to national security and article 5:

      The Attorney-General stated that both he and the Director of the SFO shared the view that the decision taken was compatible with Article 5 of the OECD convention. He said they did not believe that the convention does, or was ever intended to, prevent national authorities from taking decisions on the basis of such fundamental considerations of national and international security.

      I do not believe that we would have signed up to it if we had thought that we were abandoning any ability to have regard to something as fundamental as national security, and I do not believe that any other country would have signed up, either.'
    5. The threat to national security the importance of other intelligence sources and the effect on article 5:
      Neither I nor the SFO had any direct contact with the Saudis, but it was made clear by the Prime Minister that they had threatened to withdraw counter-terrorism co-operation if the investigation went ahead. The ambassador said that those threats were real; the Saudis were not bluffing.' (Attorney-General)

      The question was asked of Lord Goldsmith whether this consideration applied to other countries. He could not see how it did, because of the particular position of Saudi Arabia as a partner. Saudi Arabia is a source of valuable streams of intelligence on al-Qaeda and other terrorist activity and further plays a key role in the Government's efforts to promote peace and stability in the Middle East. However, there has been criticism from some that this fundamentally undermines article 5 and will lead to pressure from other countries to drop similar investigations where the UK has strategic interests. Global terrorism is considered to be a worldwide phenomenon and therefore the UK may well be faced with the same stark choice in the future in the face of a grand corruption investigation in a country considered to be another valuable source for al-Qaeda and other terrorist activity.

    6. Governance standards for developing countries:

      Many NGOs6 have recently stated that the decision to drop the SFO case has undermined Dfid's7 activities in the developing world. The World Development Movement said that,

      "future efforts by the UK to prescribe governance standards for developing countries in receipt of aid and debt relief are likely to be viewed as nothing less than double standards".
    7. The consequences of discontinuance:

      The central issue to be considered is the extent to which this decision has weakened the UK's role in the worldwide fight against corruption, in the OECD and in developing countries in which the UK promotes good governance principles. Many MPs and commentators considered that the credibility of the SFO had been damaged domestically and that internationally the UK's credibility had been seriously undermined. The OECD's response highlights the view of the international community that the UK is not doing enough to demonstrate its commitment to fighting international corruption.

      The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) began a legal challenge in December 2006 to the decision to drop the investigation.

      Susan Hawley, corruption expert at the Corner House, stated:

      "This investigation was always a test case of how serious the UK government is about meeting its international commitments on combating corruption. The government has clearly breached its obligations under the OECD Convention. If the decision not to investigate is allowed to stand, international efforts to fight corruption will be set back by at least a decade. Corrupt politicians and businesses around the world will be rubbing their hands with glee8."

      In February 2007 a formal application was made to the Government for a judicial review of the decision.

      However, the Attorney-General has repeatedly stated that the decision of the SFO director to stop the BAE case emphatically does not mean that the UK is backing off from its commitment to tackling international corruption. The SFO is actively pursuing a number of investigations into suspected international corruption and has been told that they should pursue those cases vigorously.'

  6. The UK's anti-corruption strategy
    1. The Government's Four-Point Plan:

      In July 2006, before the SFO's decision to discontinue, the Prime Minister asked Hilary Benn, Secretary of State for International Development, to lead the Government's work on combating overseas corruption, working closely with colleagues. The Government has published its first annual action plan to:

      1. investigate and prosecute bribery overseas;
      2. eliminate money laundering and to recover stolen assets;
      3. promote responsible business conduct; and
      4. support international efforts to fight corruption.
    2. The UK's Anti-Corruption Unit:

      In his speech before the House in February 2007, the Attorney-General highlighted the UK's increased investigative capacity courtesy of a new international corruption group9, staffed by City of London and Metropolitan Police officers and the all-new SFO vetting standards and overseas corruption unit. To date, the City of London Police has started work on four cases with the Serious Fraud Office and made its first arrests in January.

    3. Technical Assistance to other countries:

      Lord Goldsmith also noted that the UK is working closely with our international partners to agree guidelines for technical assistance and are in fact already providing that technical assistance, for example, the SFO recently provided training to prosecutors from Nigeria.

    4. FCO Awareness Programme:

      The Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) runs events to raise awareness of the risks of corruption in the private sector and among British officials, who are obliged to report corruption allegations against UK nationals and UK companies. Since July 2006, the FCO has conducted specific awareness-raising sessions for UK business in China, Argentina, Thailand and Ghana, as well as in some UK regions. To complement this, the FCO issues guidance at least once a year to remind all overseas staff of their reporting obligation, drawing their attention to the latest guidance available on the UK legal framework. The subject also features in training for officials going overseas.

    5. DFID's Interim Progress Report:

      In its Interim Progress Report10, the UK Department for International Development (Dfid) noted the Government's significant progress in implementing the plan. Dfid reported on the Governement's progress as follows:

       

      Action

      Stage

      Fully implement the new OECD action statement' on export credits by August 2006, and press other OECD countries to take similar action.

      Achieved

      Launch a revamped National Contact Point by September 2006 involving DTI, DFID, FCO

      Achieved

      Launch a Steering Board with independent experts to strengthen our implementation of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

      Ongoing

      Work within the OECD to make the Guidelines more effective in promoting responsible business conduct.

      Ongoing

      Establish new structures by October 2006 to ensure a proactive UK response to money laundering by foreign politically exposed persons (PEPs)

      Achieved

      Establish a dedicated overseas corruption unit in the UK by November 2006, staffed by City of London and Metropolitan police, to investigate allegations of bribery and money laundering.

      Achieved

      Agree Whitehall priorities for further G8 anti-corruption work after the St Petersburg summit. Work closely with G8 partners to implement agreed G8 actions on corruption by December 2006. Explore opportunities for collaboration with India and China

      Ongoing

      Press for first UN Convention Against Corruption Conference of State Parties in December 2006 to agree guidelines for technical assistance to assist implementation and effective monitoring systems.

      Progress Achieved

      Draw up proposals for an international corruption investigation centre as part of this work, to be agreed internationally by March 2007.

      Ongoing

      Press G8 partners to ratify UNCAC by March 2007

      Ongoing

      Help developing countries to improve transparency and value for money in public procurement.

      Ongoing

      Submit a written report in March 2007 outlining further progress on implementation of the recommendations of the OECD phase 2 Bribery Review.

      Achieved

      Give presentations to the UK business community in three major emerging markets by March 2007 on the risks to developing countries of corruption, the UK law and the type of support available to companies to deal with bribe solicitation.

      Achieved

      Implement fully the Third EU Money Laundering Directive by December 2007.

      Ongoing

      Help UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies to put into practice relevant international agreements, such as the UNCAC and the OECD Bribery Convention, and measures equivalent to the EU directives on money laundering.

      Ongoing

    6. International Corruption Investigation Support Centre :

      Since the Report was published, an international expert meeting has taken place (on 21 March 2007) to agree various proposals for an International Corruption Investigation Support Centre.

    7. Current significant international corruption investigations :

      Oil for Food Scandal

      In February 2007, the SFO launched an investigation into allegations that a number of major UK-based firms paid bribes to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. They are on a long list of international companies accused in a UN report of paying kickbacks' under the discredited oil-for-food sanctions regime. Ministers have since agreed to fund the investigation with £22 million over three years. The Treasury's decision to provide this additional funding was announced by the Attorney-General during his appearance before the House of Lords in February.

      The investigation was prompted by the UN report that listed more than 2,200 companies from 40 countries that may have been linked to bribery or "kickbacks" to Iraq.

    8. Corruption Reforms:

      The current law on corruption in the UK, with the exception of the changes introduced by Part 12 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, is based on case law and Acts of Parliament passed between 1889 and 1916. Thus, it was due to current uncertainty in this area of law and antiquated legislation that a draft Corruption Bill was presented to Parliament on 24th March 200311. The Bill proposed to abolish the existing common law offence of bribery together with the statutory corruption offences. Three new statutory offences would be created:

      • Corruptly conferring an advantage (Clause 1).
      • Corruptly obtaining an advantage (Clause 2).
      • Performing functions as an agent corruptly (Clause 3)12.

      The Bill came under criticism from a Joint Parliamentary Committee (who published their report on 24th March 2003), and the OECD highlighted these criticisms in their Phase 2 Report on the implementation of the OECD Convention. Amongst their observations, the OECD's Working Group on Bribery (WGB) noted that:

      • The Bill retains the agent/principal concept, which adds to the complexity of a definition of corruption.
      • The Bill "would require that the active briber must believe that if [the foreign public official] did the act or made the omission it would be primarily in return for the conferring of the advantage&". The WGB suggested that attempting to prove such a mens rea would be "a highly artificial exercise".
      • "The Bill does not expressly mention any of the categories of foreign public officials listed in the OECD Convention".
      • "The Bill does not expressly mention whether an offence is committed regardless if the offering, etc. is done through an intermediary and regardless if the advantage is for a third party".
      • The OECD also noted the suggestion that the Bill "should make UK companies liable for the actions of foreign subsidiaries under their control".

      Following the publication of the Joint Parliamentary Committee report, the Bill was withdrawn from Parliament. In an attempt to seek a new consensus on the way forward, the Government published a consultation paper in December 2005. The consultation revealed that there is broad support for reform of the existing law but no consensus as to how it can best be achieved. As a result, in March 2007 the Government asked the Law Commission to take forward the findings of the Government's consultation and to consider the options for reform further.

      In November 2006, Lord Chidgey re-introduced the Corruption Bill that was first prepared by Transparency International (UK) and introduced by Hugh Bailey MP in May 200613. The Bill has been updated and amended, and was put forward to the House of Lords as a Private Member's Bill. Having recently had its second reading, the Bill will now progress to the Committee stage.

The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Rachna Gokani in the preparation of this paper.

Footnotes

  1. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
  2. The Treasury, in recognising the importance of the SFO investigation into the humanitarian aid aspect of Oil for Food, have provided the SFO with approximately £22 million additional funding.
  3. The Code for Crown Prosecutors is a public document, issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions that sets out the general principles Crown Prosecutors should follow when they make decisions on cases. It can be found at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/code.html
  4. [Official Report, 14/12/06; col. 1715.]
  5. In acting as the Government's Chief Legal Adviser, whether on civil matters or on criminal justice policy, or in lending his name to civil proceedings on behalf of the Government which are conducted in his name, the Attorney acts independently — in the sense that he gives impartial legal advice. However, when providing such advice he is acting on behalf of and as a member of the Government and is bound by the principle of collective responsibility. Where, on the other hand, the Attorney General acts as guardian of the public interest, he is acting in a wholly independent and quasi-judicial capacity and not as a member of the Government. In carrying out such public interest functions, the Attorney General may seek the views of Ministerial colleagues on where the public interest lies (through what is known as "the Shawcross exercise), but ultimately the relevant decision is for him alone. All the Attorney's functions in relation to individual criminal cases fall under this head.
  6. In its broadest sense, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) is one that is not directly part of the structure of government. An NGO is any non-profit, voluntary citizens' group which is organised on a local, national or international level. Task-oriented and driven by people with a common interest, NGOs perform a variety of service and humanitarian functions, bring citizen concerns to Governments, advocate and monitor policies and encourage political participation through provision of information. Some are organised around specific issues, such as human rights, environment or health. They provide analysis and expertise, serve as early warning mechanisms and help monitor and implement international agreements.
  7. The Department for International Development (DFID) is the part of the UK Government that manages Britain's aid to poor countries and works to get rid of extreme poverty.
  8. CAAT Press release, 19th December 2006
  9. The Anti-Corruption unit consists of a 10-person team with a specific remit for foreign bribery investigations.
  10. Published on 12th March 2007 by the Minister for Trade
  11. Cm 5777; available at http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm57/5777/5777.pdf
  12. This clause breaks the most new ground.
  13. The draft Corruption Bill, having been read under the 10-minute rule, fell away and ceased to feature in the parliamentary programme.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.